ML20198S466
| ML20198S466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198S433 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-253-C, NUDOCS 9801260187 | |
| Download: ML20198S466 (2) | |
Text
--
NOT ATIO N VOTE I
RESPONSE SHFEJ TO:
John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commissloa FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-253 - POLICY OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO RESTRUCTURING OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY Approved _ Disapproved X wicomments Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See AMached AEA iw e,.
SIG QR EJ Release Vote / X /
O BJ a ne b+ /Y /117
~~
DATE Withhold Vote /
I Entered on "AS" Yes No
- B22*ed e 738at"
~
CORREEPONDENCE PDR
Cmr. Dicus' comment on SECY.97-253 I approve Option 2 rather than staffs recommended approach of Option 1.
Given the discussion which indicates that there is no apparent direct nexus between the financial qualification of a licensee and its ability to operate its plant (s) in a safe manner, it is my view that it !s unnecessary to require the submission of additional financial and regulatory information beyond that which current regulations require, on a generic basis. The safety benefit to be gained by the aoditionalinformation is not clear at all. Furthermore, current regulations do not preclude the staff from obtaining any information it deems necessary to ensure adequate health and safety of the public.
Option 1 may also be premature at this time for two reasons: 1) the Commission has asked the staff to investigate the possible use of certain economic information as a forward-looking indicator of licensee performance.- No recommended indicators have yet been proposed, and implementation of Option 1 may not result in receipt of the appropriate information; and 2) the proposed definition of " electric utility" as used in the staffs proposed rule on decommissioning funding assurance, although currently consistent with that proposed in Option 1, is not finalized and could be subject to change. Any change in the definition of the term would need to be reconciled between the two p6 posed rulemakings.
P
.